1. Brandon A. Durant PI: Bruce D. Bartholow MU Social Cognitive Neuroscience

2.  Alcohol effects on social behavior linked to impaired cognition ◦ Aggression, sexual risk-taking, etc.  Executive Cognitive Functioning (ECF) ◦ “a higher order cognitive construct involved in the planning, initiation, and regulation of goal-directed behavior” ◦ Impairment of ECF directly mediates alcohol-related changes in social behaviors (Giancola, 2000)

3.  Some studies suggest that alcohol impairs some aspects of ECF; others say ECF impaired while leaving other cognitive abilities intact (Hoaken et al., 1998)  Could be a function of specific tasks/abilities being tested ◦ Most consistent impairment observed with inhibition (e.g., Fillmore & Vogel-Sprott, 1999, 2000) ◦ Some tasks arguably tap multiple ECF components; some might be more sensitive to alcohol than others

4.  Alcohol will impair performance on tasks designed to measure inhibition ◦ Stroop, Antisaccade  Performance on a “complex” ECF task, thought to involve multiple aspects of ECF, will be less affected by alcohol ◦ Trails-making test, version B

6. 7

7. Congruent Incongruent Blue Green

8.  171 participants ◦ Age range: 21-34 (mean= 23.5) ◦ 53% male; 93% Caucasian  Initial baseline session including: ◦ 9 “specific” EF tasks (3 tasks measuring each of 3 abilities); 2 “complex” EF tasks; brief psychiatric history; various questionnaire measures  Second session (7-21 days later), randomly assigned to beverage and BAC limb conditions ◦ Alcohol (target BAC =.09%), Placebo, or Control ◦ BAC limb = A/D or D only ◦ Ps complete 3 inhibition tasks and 2 complex tasks again

9. F(2, 74) = 4.60, p =.01

10. F(4, 140) = 3.92, p <.01

11. Sober: F(5, 166) = 0.79, p >.05, ns Ascending: F(2, 86) = 0.57, p >.05, ns Descending: F(5, 166) = 1.99, p =.10

12.  Alcohol impaired inhibition task performance ◦ At least for Stroop and Antisaccade  Alcohol did not significantly affect Trails B completion time ◦ May be impaired on one cognitive ability, but other cognitive abilities make up for that impairment (Tracy & Bates, 1994) ◦ A task designed to assess frontal brain damage may not be highly sensitive to impairing effects of alcohol

13.  Examine other ECF task results ◦ Experiments 2 and 3 will focus on Shifting and Updating, respectively  Examine potential moderation as a function of baseline ECF abilities, previous drinking experience ◦ People with good sober (baseline) performance could be protected from the effects of alcohol (i.e., “more to lose;” Sher et al., 2007) ◦ Heavy drinkers could show differential impairment compared with lighter drinkers

14.  Giancola, P. R. (2000). Executive functioning: A conceptual framework for alcohol- related aggression. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 8, 576-597.  Giancola, P. R., Zeichner, A., Yarnell, J., & Dickson, K. (1996). Relation between executive cognitive functioning and the adverse consequences of alcohol use in social drinkers. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 20, 1094-1098.  Hoaken, P., Giancola, P., & Pihl, R. O. (1998). Executive cognitive functions as mediators of alcohol-related aggression. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 33, 47-54.  National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2001). Traffic Safety Facts 2001. U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT HS 809 476). Washington, DC: Author.  Pihl, R. O., Assad, J. M., & Hoaken, P. N. S. (2003). The alcohol-aggression relationship and differential sensitivity to alcohol. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 302- 315.  Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., Peuser, K., Erickson, D., & Wood, M. D. (2007). Stress- response dampening effects of alcohol: Attention as a mediator and moderator. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 362-377.  Tracy, J.I., & Bates, M.E. (1994). Models of functional organization as a method for detecting cognitive deficits: Data from a sample of social drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 55, 726-738.